2) those that can't read and choose to post multi-posts that are distracting just cuz

3) those that can not read and accept not posting there...

ITS ALL SEMANTICS!!!

Ok have you fun here. The Eric and Dave thread will end up 70,000 posts long otherwise. Have a quick one line point in the other thread feel free to post it. Let's just not have 7 conversations going at once in the other thread. Put em here.

I mean, you ****ign morons claim to have science on your side and claim to be the smart/educated ones but yet somehow manage to fumble **** the basic facts and cant even bother to do a 30 second google search on bible literalism...

you would rather argue about the difference bewteen being a 'weak athiest' / agnostic / and agnostic athiest rather than just to say "****, I guess I don't know everything"

Because I'm pretty sure modern day christians don't ALL believe every story in the bible is LITERALLY true, they realize that many of them are not..

"Bible Literalists" are in the minority , yet somehow morons like Douche Lane want to paint every single theist as some sort of dude who thinks the earth is a couple thousand years old etc...

It is basically a dishonest , ad-hom style attack that shows the nature of the attacker rather than any fact about the average theist.

I think the whole point is that if you do not take the story of Adam and Eve literally the whole backbone of jesus's sacrifice is lost entirely. What was the point of his sacrifice if not to cleanse original sin?

If you don't believe in the Jesus story literally, can you call yourself a christian? Where do you draw the line between what is literal and what is not?

I mean I'm not a theologian but if I was going to dismiss certain aspects of the bible as mythical these are questions I'd have to ask myself.

Of course in the end biblical literalism has NOTHING to do with theism. Hindus are theists as well. It's just a red herring.

And what is the cut off for theist god avatar with Hindus or Greeks or whatever multi inhabited celestial realm. What does theism state in such a grated proposition. The Muslim insistence that even angels are a redundancy for Allah comes to mind as an assessment of what could be called god.

__________________Even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases. . . He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge." -H.L. Mencken

1) Of course yes, the fact you are still asking this question despite the fact you could do a 30 second google to get the answer shows you are a dishonest or clueless moron

2) That is up to the individual, where I draw the line might be different than where you draw the line.....

3) Christianity is a type of theism, yah? The most common type in the USa?

Of course, you could probably just use common sense to answer your "questions" yourself but I guess it seems lacking...

This a discussion of the particular people on this site. A look to google simply might present some means of structuring a discussion but it doesn't provide any person's perspective on this site, anymore than a literal reading of the Bible as presented by someone else.

__________________Even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases. . . He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge." -H.L. Mencken

I mean, you ****ign morons claim to have science on your side and claim to be the smart/educated ones but yet somehow manage to fumble **** the basic facts and cant even bother to do a 30 second google search on bible literalism...

you would rather argue about the difference bewteen being a 'weak athiest' / agnostic / and agnostic athiest rather than just to say "****, I guess I don't know everything"

Jesus christ you are some assbergers having dishonest pieces of shit.

LOL. Typical Christian. Saying we're attacking YOU by debunking and "insulting" your man made gods and religions while spouting insults and bullshit in the process.

I wasn't attacking anybody. And I never once said ALL Christians believe EVERY impossible story in your book of fiction is true.

And yes, I do know the numbers on "Bible Literalism". I've seen the latest gallup polls and shit. And while, thankfully, the % who think the bible is the literal word of god is declining, it's still embarrassing.

There's the evangelical, young earth creationism wack jobs that believe every word and story in the bible is the word of god and true and then there's the rest who cherry pick the **** out of it.

Yes, I realize alot of Christians cherry pick the "loving" verses and stories and think all the good shit is true, yet somehow ignore all of the awful immoral parts, the impossible stories and obvious contradictions, yet still believe it's inspired by the Christian god.

They ignore the genocide, misogyny, racism, incest, condoning of rape and slavery, etc...Yet go right to their bible when it comes to homosexuality and other moral issues that fit their agenda. It's pathetic.

And again, what is ignorant about the fact that the story of Adam and Eve is impossible and not true?

What is ignorant about the fact that that is where "original sin" began and if there was no original sin, there was no need for a "savior" Jesus to forgive us all for our sins. Without Jesus Christ, there's no Christianity.

What is ignorant about stating that the religion is based upon the story of Adam and Eve and that story is obviously not true?

This a discussion of the particular people on this site. A look to google simply might present some means of structuring a discussion but it doesn't provide any person's perspective on this site, anymore than a literal reading of the Bible as presented by someone else.

Just how much of the Bible should be interpreted literally is one of the hottest debates within Christianity today, and there are many different opinions. Some people believe the Bible must be defended against attacks on its accuracy and Divine origin. But, common literary techniques like parable, metaphor and allegory do not negate the Bible's message, nor do they threaten our faith. The Bible's teachings stand on their own merits, whether or not those teachings are delivered via stories that are intended to be taken literally. The important thing is that we understand what God is telling us through the Bible and that we don't let arguments about the literal truth of the Bible distract us from that goal.

Quote:

Actually, although the media often speak of “biblical literalists”, no one at all takes the whole of the Bible literally. Looking just at Jesus’ sayings: there are few one-eyed literalists (Matthew 5:29) few who suggest we should really “hate” all our relatives (Luke 14:26), and even fewer who think that Jesus was literally a vine even though he plainly said he was (John 15:1). Looking at the creation passages, one of the very first statements is And God said “let there be light” – but few suppose that this means God spoke using literal sound waves before he even made an atmosphere. People who set out with bold claims to be biblical “literalists” really aren’t. Thus eg in a postscript below we look at Henry Morris, a key figure in establishing the supposed “literalist” movement, and find that, in practice, in ten key points he interpreted the Bible’s creation passages figuratively. This is inevitable. No one can be a total literalist.

Quote:

Clearly, even those of us with a high view of Scripture don’t take everything literally. Jesus is the “door,” but He’s not made of wood. We are the “branches,” but we’re not sprouting leaves.

I dont see a SINGLE site suggesting EVERYTHING must be taken LITERALLY by anyone.....I mean I am sure there will be some fundamentalist group that does somewhere (Phelps?) but come on, this is more dishonesty.

A quick 30 second google WILL indeed show the answer to the 'literal' question.

yes i read your suggestion. But it doesn't say what part of the Bible miracles YOU still insist on. Or why

__________________Even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases. . . He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge." -H.L. Mencken

Ok so now you don't care what the details are as long as we discuss someone else's dalliance in their acceptance of what is possible based upon literary devices.

__________________Even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases. . . He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge." -H.L. Mencken